"Please, No African American Nurses to care for [redacted] Baby per Dad's request. Thank you," read a note that was attached to the baby's clipboard.

A Michigan hospital is under fire after a lawsuit claims it fulfilled a father's request to have no black nurses look after his baby in the neonatal intensive care unit last fall.

A black nurse sued Hurley Medical Center for discrimination and violation of the state civil rights act after the nurse manager reassigned her because of the man's request for no black nurses, according to the complaint.

A hospital lawyer eventually told the staff this was illegal, but the lawsuit alleges that black nurses were intentionally not assigned to the baby for the remainder of its stay in the hospital over the next month.

So the question is, "What’s more important the rights of the Dad in the what he wants for his baby or the rights of the Nurse that was not assigned to care for the baby"?

"Please, No African American Nurses to care for [redacted] Baby per Dad's request. Thank you," read a note that was attached to the baby's clipboard.

A Michigan hospital is under fire after a lawsuit claims it fulfilled a father's request to have no black nurses look after his baby in the neonatal intensive care unit last fall.

A black nurse sued Hurley Medical Center for discrimination and violation of the state civil rights act after the nurse manager reassigned her because of the man's request for no black nurses, according to the complaint.

A hospital lawyer eventually told the staff this was illegal, but the lawsuit alleges that black nurses were intentionally not assigned to the baby for the remainder of its stay in the hospital over the next month.

So the question is, "What’s more important the rights of the Dad in the what he wants for his baby or the rights of the Nurse that was not assigned to care for the baby"?

The hospital should have denied the request. They should have explained that they were an equal opportunity employer and would not remove a nurse from her/his assignment based on race. That was their policy. If the patient didn't like this policy they were free to choose a different hospital.

The hospital should have denied the request. They should have explained that they were an equal opportunity employer and would not remove a nurse from her/his assignment based on race. That was their policy. If the patient didn't like this policy they were free to choose a different hospital.

The a-hole dad wasn't the patient, if the hospital turned away the baby and something happen to the baby, well now we are talking a law suite in the millions.

It's not refusal of service to say we cannot legally comply with your request. Race is not protected under BFOQ, and customer satisfaction is not a legitimate (read: legally protected) reason to comply with this request.

There are no "patient's rights" where race is concerned. This hospital is in huge trouble.

It's not refusal of service to say we cannot legally comply with your request. Race is not protected under BFOQ, and customer satisfaction is not a legitimate (read: legally protected) reason to comply with this request.

There are no "patient's rights" where race is concerned. This hospital is in huge trouble.

Technically, you're right. But as a supervisor it's a tough call to send your staff into a predeterminedly ugly situation like that. They can't stop the guy from being racist, so I can see why a supervisor might err on the side of shielding the staff from it rather than bring it to full-blown confrontation. If the hospital effectively tells that story, it's hard to imagine the "damages" amounting to much. I wish the courts would force plaintiffs to just accept an apology sometimes. The world would be a better place.

It's not refusal of service to say we cannot legally comply with your request. Race is not protected under BFOQ, and customer satisfaction is not a legitimate (read: legally protected) reason to comply with this request.

There are no "patient's rights" where race is concerned. This hospital is in huge trouble.

So is it enough for the hospital to fire all personnel that had any involvement with this situation and then offer the nurse an apology at an open press conference for all to see.

Or on the other hand is the only thing that will make this right is to award the nurse with a large amount of cash?

Technically, you're right. But as a supervisor it's a tough call to send your staff into a predeterminedly ugly situation like that. They can't stop the guy from being racist, so I can see why a supervisor might err on the side of shielding the staff from it rather than bring it to full-blown confrontation. If the hospital effectively tells that story, it's hard to imagine the "damages" amounting to much. I wish the courts would force plaintiffs to just accept an apology sometimes. The world would be a better place.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. At some point, the management needs to take responsibility for their employees, and if this supervisor was unaware of the law, it's on the hospital. Personally, I always made sure my supervisors were knowledgeable of all applicable laws because I know that it not only covers their ass, it covers mine and my company's as well.

What the supervisor should have done is tell the father that they were unable to comply with his request per federal law, and that he was welcome to seek treatment somewhere that might be able to follow his request. Then the supervisor should have gone to their immediate supervisor and reported the situation.

How a request like this in this day and age wouldn't cause anyone to go to their supervisor for help is beyond me.

It doesn't matter how effectively the hospital tells the story, the damages are going to be huge, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were in the millions. I can say that if I were in that situation, a simple "sorry we didn't know the laws" wouldn't be enough, and I have a hard time believing the courts won't find the same.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. At some point, the management needs to take responsibility for their employees, and if this supervisor was unaware of the law, it's on the hospital. Personally, I always made sure my supervisors were knowledgeable of all applicable laws because I know that it not only covers their ass, it covers mine and my company's as well.

What the supervisor should have done is tell the father that they were unable to comply with his request per federal law, and that he was welcome to seek treatment somewhere that might be able to follow his request. Then the supervisor should have gone to their immediate supervisor and reported the situation.

How a request like this in this day and age wouldn't cause anyone to go to their supervisor for help is beyond me.

It doesn't matter how effectively the hospital tells the story, the damages are going to be huge, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were in the millions. I can say that if I were in that situation, a simple "sorry we didn't know the laws" wouldn't be enough, and I have a hard time believing the courts won't find the same.

Say what you want, but in the real world it was just a no win situation. If they sent the nurse in there with the guy and he said anything offensive, she'd be suing them for subjecting her to a known hostile working environment. The biggest shame is that people feel the need to try to cash in on these kinds of problems. It's part of life. Everyone learns from it, you move on.

So is it enough for the hospital to fire all personnel that had any involvement with this situation and then offer the nurse an apology at an open press conference for all to see.

Or on the other hand is the only thing that will make this right is to award the nurse with a large amount of cash?

To my knowledge, the plaintiff doesn't have a whole lot to do with the amount of damages awarded once it goes to trial, so as far as what would be enough for the courts to decide, it's not really my place to decide.

As far as a settlement goes, I wouldn't settle for anything less than:

- Formal public apology and explanation
- Disciplinary action for those involved
- Establishment of education program on applicable employment law for all employees involved
- Wages from now until retirement age
- Continued health benefits
- Accrued retirement time and benefits resulting thereof during retirement

Say what you want, but in the real world it was just a no win situation. If they sent the nurse in there with the guy and he said anything offensive, she'd be suing them for subjecting her to a known hostile working environment. The biggest shame is that people feel the need to try to cash in on these kinds of problems. It's part of life. Everyone learns from it, you move on.

Number one, since when is following federal law not "the real world"? How is it somehow the nurse's fault that her boss wasn't aware she couldn't discriminate?

Number two, really? The biggest shame in a situation where a supervisor discriminates based on race is that the affected nurse is likely to receive remuneration? Have you ever worked in an environment where you were the direct cause of your supervisor's dismissal? My guess is no.

Number three, it's not even a no-win situation. As a supervisor, my decision would have been based on two choices: 1) I comply with the patient and DEFINITELY break the law, or 2) I comply with the law and MAYBE the nurse gets offended. Additionally, I would have confronted the nurse and explained the situation, as well as contacted my immediate supervisor. Most times I would bet the nurse would simply recuse herself from the situation...I wouldn't force her to go in there, so doing so would be entirely her choice. The supervisor (and the hospital) were simply negligent on educating their staff and taking the appropriate action.